One admirable and lasting contribution Deleuze makes to philosophy is his ability to remain an anathema to all isms. Realism, Idealism, Materialism etc all become merely signposts in true thinking, all with their byroads and dead ends, they nevertheless resonate with one another to lead somewhere else. Each ism can become a dictator, even good ideas when taken alone become blockages to thinking. He wants us to see beyond isms.
I don't think his goal was to compare the two at all. He makes clear he is speaking from a Realism point of view. Also, most mathematics (including those he referenced) that delve into philosophy treat their theorems, numbers, and the laws of mathematics as a Realist would.
1. He says that "atom is an Individual Singular" by saying that atom's life span began with the big bang. However, the ball of gas, which lead to the big bang, wasnt it made up of atoms itself? So hasnt Atoms ALWAYS existed and are Universal? 2. What was the point he was trying to make by showing that we can put atomic bonding into mathematical terms? There IS logic here as well (of energy) behind WHY these structures occur. So how does this prove that math > logic? Or am I missing the point?
Badiou has no mathematical skills? Have you read The Concept of Model, Number and Numbers, or Logics of Worlds? Granted, Peirce's contribution to mathematics is pretty extraordinary, but to say Badiou had no 'actual mathematical skills' is pretty damn stupid.
An object is existence without being and the horror of existence is what an object is and existence without being is all around us for we live in a world of objects that exist-there without being-there and to our absolute horror there are even humans there that exist without being existing-there-without-being-there for existing-there is not being-there: Ontology for Heidegger is Obology just as Ontology for Harman is Obology and Obology for Heidegger and Harman is objectified-being-into-obing.
Why not simply talk about Charles Sanders Peirce and Aristotle? Unlike Deleuze or Badiou, Peirce had actual mathematical skills and is much easier to read.
One admirable and lasting contribution Deleuze makes to philosophy is his ability to remain an anathema to all isms. Realism, Idealism, Materialism etc all become merely signposts in true thinking, all with their byroads and dead ends, they nevertheless resonate with one another to lead somewhere else. Each ism can become a dictator, even good ideas when taken alone become blockages to thinking. He wants us to see beyond isms.
I don't think his goal was to compare the two at all. He makes clear he is speaking from a Realism point of view. Also, most mathematics (including those he referenced) that delve into philosophy treat their theorems, numbers, and the laws of mathematics as a Realist would.
@jsearle84 because Deleuze is different than Peirce and Aristotle.
Aristotle's difference minus the eternal (via evolutionary theory). And a mathematical approach to individuation.
Still don't understand why properties (states) are not apprehended relational? Seems like a problematic 'ontological commitment'.
1. He says that "atom is an Individual Singular" by saying that atom's life span began with the big bang.
However, the ball of gas, which lead to the big bang, wasnt it made up of atoms itself?
So hasnt Atoms ALWAYS existed and are Universal?
2. What was the point he was trying to make by showing that we can put atomic bonding into mathematical terms? There IS logic here as well (of energy) behind WHY these structures occur.
So how does this prove that math > logic? Or am I missing the point?
Badiou has no mathematical skills? Have you read The Concept of Model, Number and Numbers, or Logics of Worlds? Granted, Peirce's contribution to mathematics is pretty extraordinary, but to say Badiou had no 'actual mathematical skills' is pretty damn stupid.
An object is existence without being and the horror of existence is what an object is and existence without being is all around us for we live in a world of objects that exist-there without being-there and to our absolute horror there are even humans there that exist without being existing-there-without-being-there for existing-there is not being-there: Ontology for Heidegger is Obology just as Ontology for Harman is Obology and Obology for Heidegger and Harman is objectified-being-into-obing.
Why not simply talk about Charles Sanders Peirce and Aristotle? Unlike Deleuze or Badiou, Peirce had actual mathematical skills and is much easier to read.